I wonder if alex knows Nielk - I don't see. But there has been something of a vendetta against anyone opposing the psyches and their "model" over decades in the UK. Little wonder so many took off overseas (like my brother a Neurologist saying "they even support each other when they know it to be wrong"). And currently under various trials/investigations/testing as he his University seek to unravel the collapse of the immune system. Above all heal.

I just love Prof Hooper, no-one puts it quite like him, he deserves a blinking knighthood for how he has demonstrated the behaviour expected of a caring compassionate medical professional. Bloody brilliant.

Click to expand...

Some of the Hooper bits I've read have not been very good. He did one on the manipulation of stats around PACE which made a lot of good points, but often I feel like he focuses his attention on weak arguments. (Not read this new piece).

Yes jace, there is systemic ambiguity in much of the literature on the dysfunctional belief model, especially in material covered by the media. Some of this is due to redefinitions of things: sometimes these are explicit but rarely mentioned (so if you don't do your research you miss it); sometimes its implied and not explicit, but the argument cannot follow without the implicit redefinition; and sometimes its just blatant. I think there are instances where in the same discussion the meaning of terms varies repeatedly. I hope to be analyzing some of those next year.

Uuuuuuuuuuuugh! Well written and good article form one of our true heroes, much for Prof Hooper!
But after reading that detailed expose' and critique, it makes me about boak!
The only thing I can think of more odious and repulsive than Wessely, would be to wake up from a three day drunk, and find you had been chewing on a used condom....

Never done that Silverblade - any possible cure in it ? Well humour seems to be a capacity the drudges of the psychos fail - you should have seen my last one in A & E. (though me collapsed) not funny then but at least humour returns now.

Well, as far as Grossly Excruciating Tossers and Cloacal Bloody p*ssTake go, I suppose chewing on a crusty rubber is at least...shorter, if that's appropriate way of putting it in the circumstances, and, especially when talking about these less than...endowed fekwits?

me thinks, seriously a high proportion of such are either actual sociopaths to some extent, or have become so zealotorially distanced from suffering and compassion by their own egotistical demands, that they are functional sociopathforms, to hoist them with their own petard

One thing I've noticed - when scientists who have nursed a pet theory for a long time are finally forced to engage with a new consensus in their field that contradicts said pet theory, they will pretend that their model allowed for the new consensus all along, and never admit that their model directly contradicts said consensus.

Given the shifty having-it-both-ways nature of the arguments that the Wessely school puts forth, I can easily see this happening - or perhaps it's happening already.

If your hypothesis rests on a vague, mysterious mind-body connection, the mechanisms of which can't be objectively observed or precisely described in biological terms, you can stretch it to fit new biological findings as needed. After all, how can you prove that your mental state (+your deconditioning) DOESN'T influence the proteins in your spinal fluid, or your cytokine production, or your demonstrable immune irregularities, or your ANS dysfunctions, or...?, or...?, or...?, or ??

Even if (when) there is eventually some fairly complete consensus about the physical pathology of the disease, there will always be a little room for your mental state (+ the deconditioning it causes) to be a contributing factor to your illness, because HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT ISN'T??

I wonder how overwhelming the biomedical consensus would have to become before the psychobabblers have to abandon their position. Maybe they never have to abandon it entirely; after all there is still psychobabble applied to all manner of other illnesses besides ours. I highly doubt that any psychobabblers will ever explicitly admit to their disease model having ever been "wrong." The most I hope for is that they will stay in a little corner where people can *optionally* seek their kind of treatment among other "alternative" approaches. I wonder how many adherents they'd attract if they had to compete with real, accepted medical treatments?

The trouble with asking for evidence, is that any negative remarks can be taken out of context, and even invented. And if there is any evidence, it won't look good for us.

If evidence is required, maybe the best approach might be to make a FOI request to Simon Wessely's employers, for evidence in relation to the number of illegal threats, or complaints that the courts have upheld, if he works at a university.

Click to expand...

I really would like to see evidence of his claim that police now think we are as dangerous as animal rights activists.

Given the shifty having-it-both-ways nature of the arguments that the Wessely school puts forth, I can easily see this happening - or perhaps it's happening already.

If your hypothesis rests on a vague, mysterious mind-body connection, the mechanisms of which can't be objectively observed or precisely described in biological terms, you can stretch it to fit new biological findings as needed. After all, how can you prove that your mental state (+your deconditioning) DOESN'T influence the proteins in your spinal fluid, or your cytokine production, or your demonstrable immune irregularities, or your ANS dysfunctions, or...?, or...?, or...?, or ??

Even if (when) there is eventually some fairly complete consensus about the physical pathology of the disease, there will always be a little room for your mental state (+ the deconditioning it causes) to be a contributing factor to your illness, because HOW CAN YOU PROVE IT ISN'T??
I

Click to expand...

Gastric ulcers are a case in point. Even after discdvering H. pylori as a cause, they are still claiming (at least in 2005) that its partly psychosomatic.

I too see a trend toward hedging their position. They see the bioscience, I think, they just don't acknowledge it.

Now Simon's complaining that the worst threats to him are "the ceaseless internet slander and deliberate distortion of his work":

Wessely has received both e-mail and telephone threats for his work on CFS, although he says the most sinister is the ceaseless internet slander and deliberate distortion of his work and writings. On police advice he has similar security arrangements to those who do animal research and receives regular security briefings. Wessely's experiences resonate with Blakemore, who has been attacked and threatened for his scientific views in the past. But Blakemore points out that, remarkably, in Wessely's case, the extremists often have CFS themselves and have an almost self-destructive approach, attacking the researchers who are doing their best to understand the condition and help them. “For patients to dismiss this work because it is being done by psychiatrists, and to attack those who are trying to help, is perverse and reveals a long outdated suspicion about the reality of mental illness”, adds Blakemore.

When asked why he had never given up in spite of the persistent attacks he faced, Wessely explained that he always strongly felt the support of his peers and his own patients. Acknowledging his colleagues in the field, Wessely says he is one of many people working on CFS who have had similar experiences. “Maybe I received the prize because I'm probably more visible and I've been around longer. But some of the most persecuted are not psychiatrists but doctors and scientists working in many different disciplines such as infectious diseases, which is why this is considered anti-science. If you arrive at an answer which is not what the extremists want then you become a target.”

I think that we have to face up to it that Wessely has been threatened, and that he has evidence, and that he will continue to desperately use the evidence against an entire patient population to support his case that CFS patients have a psychiatric illness, as has been done in the Lancet article that Merry quoted above.

I think we've just got to calmly highlight the weaknesses of their arguments, and tell everyone about the results of the PACE Trial, in which only 13% of participants, at best, responded to treatment with CBT and GET.

Now Simon's complaining that the worst threats to him are "the ceaseless internet slander and deliberate distortion of is work":

Wessely has received both e-mail and telephone threats for his work on CFS, although he says the most sinister is the ceaseless internet slander and deliberate distortion of his work and writings. On police advice he has similar security arrangements to those who do animal research and receives regular security briefings. Wessely's experiences resonate with Blakemore, who has been attacked and threatened for his scientific views in the past. But Blakemore points out that, remarkably, in Wessely's case, the extremists often have CFS themselves and have an almost self-destructive approach, attacking the researchers who are doing their best to understand the condition and help them. “For patients to dismiss this work because it is being done by psychiatrists, and to attack those who are trying to help, is perverse and reveals a long outdated suspicion about the reality of mental illness”, adds Blakemore.

When asked why he had never given up in spite of the persistent attacks he faced, Wessely explained that he always strongly felt the support of his peers and his own patients. Acknowledging his colleagues in the field, Wessely says he is one of many people working on CFS who have had similar experiences. “Maybe I received the prize because I'm probably more visible and I've been around longer. But some of the most persecuted are not psychiatrists but doctors and scientists working in many different disciplines such as infectious diseases, which is why this is considered anti-science. If you arrive at an answer which is not what the extremists want then you become a target.”

Click to expand...

hmmm contradictions and more contradictions . I thought he no longer worked in CFS or does he just say he does when it suits . Also slander and distortion of his work is a far cry from death threats isnt it yet when the going gets tuff and some research pops along that threatens his whole little CFS world amazingly we are all knife wielding maniacs and threatening to kill him ( there was ref to a woman with a knife some time back ) I wonder if all those bloody tabloids that ran the death threat stories time and time again will now retract . ha I think not no doubt when the next breakthrough in ME/CFS comes along which isnt CBT or GET we will all be back to being likened to animal rights activists , sending death threats and knife weilding maniacs again .you couldn't make it up could you . Why is he never officaially hauled over the coals for all these contradictions ?

...and that he will continue to desperately use the evidence against an entire patient population to support his case that CFS patients have a psychiatric illness, as has been done in the Lancet article that Merry quoted above.

I think we've just got to calmly highlight the weaknesses of their arguments, and tell everyone about the results of the PACE Trial, in which only 13% of participants, at best, responded to treatment with CBT and GET.

Click to expand...

Agreed. But PACE is not all that some people are lambasting Wessely for, is it Bob? My personal view is that folk should stop singling out Wessely period.

Wessely is not responsible for everything that people appear to be accusing him of. He is often in my humble opine - a rather convenient scapegoat for a lack of popular scientific progress towards cause, a lack of more effective treatment and dare I say it - a distinct lack of cure.

Simon Wessely makes himself the scapegoat by going repeatedly to the press complaining of persecution by people with ME/CFS who object to his views. In doing so he denigrates the ME/CFS community and incites more anger. He's taken on this public role.

Agreed. But PACE is not all that some people are lambasting Wessely for, is it Bob? My personal view is that folk should stop singling out Wessely period.

Wessely is not responsible for everything that people appear to be accusing him of. He is often in my humble opine - a rather convenient scapegoat for a lack of popular scientific progress towards cause, a lack of more effective treatment and dare I say it - a distinct lack of cure.

Wessely, he be the convenient bogey-man.

Click to expand...

I wonder is singling Wessely out allows others to get away with some very poor science. Isn't it Prof White who should be questioned for ignoring the PACE protocol and failing to publish results. Also I think we should talk of the institutions rather than the individuals. I assume that Queen Mary's is the sponsoring organisation for PACE and it is Queen Mary's who say that it is normal to ignore the published protocol for a trial in reponse to FoI requests. I wonder if this is a view that the vice chancelor would be willing to defend in public. Universities can be sensitive about their reputation and should be ensuring a high standard from their staff.

At noodlemaz this week, when Simon Wessely was engaging with angry commenters, nazim marie jafry asked: " Can I also ask if is it true that you endorsed Elaine Showalter’s book ‘Hystories’, or is this a myth that needs debunking too?"

Simon responded: "You ask if it is true that I endorsed Elaine Showalter’s book “Hystories”/ Why did you think that I did? Not long after she published that, I was fortunate enough to meet her socially, and we have remained friends ever since. But did I endorse it? No. I didn’t agree with it. So why didn’t I make that public. Actually I did."

He provided a link http://www.simonwessely.com/Downloads/BookChapters/CFS_Trueillness.docfor a download of his paper in which he rebuts Elaine Showalter. I read the paper. Elaine Showalter had apparently recommended that the term CFS be discarded because other psychiatric diagnoses already exist that apply to this patient population. Simon presents a case as to why the term should stay in use. But these two don't disagree fundamentally: CFS is a psychiatric condition best treated with counselling, which includes encouraging patients to exercise as a means of returning to good health. (Let me amend this. I don't know what Elaine Showalter's views are on what methods psychiatrists should employ to aid CFS patients in their recovery. She is not a psychiatrist but a literary critic.)

So Simon's response to nazim marie jafry was less than honest. He creates his own distortions on the internet.